UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

 

 

OFFICE ACTION

 

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER

TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.  A RESPONSE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TRADEMARK ELECTRONIC APPLICATION SYSTEM (TEAS) MUST BE RECEIVED BEFORE MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME OF THE LAST DAY OF THE RESPONSE PERIOD.

 

 

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 1/31/2019

 

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney.  Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issues below.  15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

 

SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES:

 

-       Prior-Filed Applications – Advisory

-       Section 2(d) Likelihood of Confusion – Partial Refusal

-       Identification of the Services – Clarification Required

 

PRIOR-FILED APPLICATIONS – ADVISORY

 

The filing date of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 87486417, 87482345, 86850704, 86850207, 86850284, and 86850185, all owned by Registrant #1,  precedes Applicant’s filing date.  See attached referenced applications.  If the marks in the referenced application register, Applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion between the marks.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq.  Therefore, upon receipt of Applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.

 

In response to this Office action, Applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between Applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications.  Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits Applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

 

However, Applicant must respond to the refusal and requirements below.

 

SECTION 2(d) LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION – PARTIAL REFUSAL

 

This refusal is limited to Applicant’s following services: all of the services in International Class 035 and the “Managed health care services for addiction recovery; Telemedicine services; Medical consulting services in the fields of second opinions, medical and vocational rehabilitation primarily responding to the needs of the workers compensation industry” in International Class 044.

 

Applicant seeks registration of the mark PARADIGM. Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4200809, 4248370, 5126863, 5291759, 5291760, 5566758, and 5566766 (all owned by Registrant #1), and 5239744 (owned by Registrant #2).  Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.  See the attached registrations.

 

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that is so similar to a registered mark that it is likely consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the services of the parties.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).  Likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis by applying the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) (called the “du Pont factors”).  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1322, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Only those factors that are “relevant and of record” need be considered.  M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., 450 F.3d 1378, 1382, 78 USPQ2d 1944, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Shen Mfg. Co. v. Ritz Hotel Ltd., 393 F.3d 1238, 1241, 73 USPQ2d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); see In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1744 (TTAB 2018). 

 

Although not all du Pont factors may be relevant, there are generally two key considerations in any likelihood of confusion analysis:  (1) the similarities between the compared marks and (2) the relatedness of the compared services.  See In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d at 1322, 123 USPQ2d at 1747 (quoting Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1164-65, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); Federated Foods, Inc. v. Fort Howard Paper Co.,544 F.2d 1098, 1103, 192 USPQ 24, 29 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (“The fundamental inquiry mandated by [Section] 2(d) goes to the cumulative effect of differences in the essential characteristics of the [services] and differences in the marks.”); TMEP §1207.01.

 

Applicant seeks registration of the mark PARADIGM in relevant part for the following services:

 

“Health care cost containment in the field of implantable surgical devices for worker's compensation related surgical procedures” in International Class 035

 

“Managed health care services for addiction recovery; Telemedicine services; Medical consulting services in the fields of second opinions, medical and vocational rehabilitation primarily responding to the needs of the workers compensation industry” in International Class 044

 

The registered marks are:

 

U.S. Registration No. 4200809 PARADIGM HEALTH PLANS for “Business consulting services, namely, providing recommendations and advice to employers and health insurance brokers with respect to employee health care plan and employee benefit plan options, products and programs in the field of state and federally approved health care and employee benefit plans” in International Class 035.

 

U.S. Registration No. 4248370 PARADIGM HEALTH PLANS for “Business consulting services, namely, providing recommendations and advice to employers and health insurance brokers with respect to employee health care plan and employee benefit plan options, products and programs in the field of state and federally regulated and approved health care and employee benefit plans” in International Class 035.

 

U.S. Registration No. 5126863 PARADIGM HEALTH PLANS for “Business consulting services, namely, providing recommendations and advice to employers and health insurance brokers with respect to employee health care plan and employee benefit plan options, products and programs in the field of state and federally regulated and approved health care and employee benefit plans” in International Class 035.

 

U.S. Registration No. 5291759 PARADIGM HEALTH PLANS EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS for “Self-funded health care plan business administration services, namely, providing recommendations, advice and business administration services in the nature of business coordination of health care services via person-to-person consultation and via the global information network to members of self-funded health care plans for non-public school entities including private and independent schools, colleges and universities; providing business recommendations and advice via person-to-person consultation and via the global information network to program members with respect to private school system tuition reimbursement programs” in International Class 035.

 

U.S. Registration No. 5291760 PARADIGM HEALTH PLANS EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS for “Self-funded health care plan business administration services, namely, providing recommendations, advice and business administration services in the nature of business coordination of health care services via person-to-person consultation and via the global information network to members of self-funded health care plans for non-public school entities including private and independent schools, colleges and universities; providing business recommendations and advice via person-to-person consultation and via the global information network to program members with respect to private school system tuition reimbursement programs” in International Class 035.

 

U.S. Registration No. 5566758 DOCTORS HOSPITALS HEALTH PLAN PARADIGM for “Health care plan business administration services, namely, providing recommendations and advise via person-to-person consultations and via the global information network to hospital health care plan members with respect to hospital employee health plans; providing business advisory services to hospital health care plan members to coordinate in-network and out-of-hospital system network health care options to reduce insurance claim costs and to improve hospital employee health plan member quality of care and satisfaction” in International Class 035.

 

U.S. Registration No. 5566766 DOCTORS HOSPITALS HEALTH PLAN PARADIGM for “Health care plan business administration services, namely, providing recommendations and advise via person-to-person consultations and via the global information network to hospital health care plan members with respect to hospital employee health plans; providing business advisory services to hospital health care plan members to coordinate in-network and out-of-hospital system network health care options to reduce insurance claim costs and to improve hospital employee health plan member quality of care and satisfaction” in International Class 035.

 

U.S. Registration No. 5239744 PARADIGM in relevant part for “Mental health services; psychological counseling services in the fields of mental health, addiction, and sobriety; individual psychotherapy and group psychotherapy services for fostering good mental health, independence, personal and family relationships, and sobriety; substance abuse rehabilitation and addiction treatment services; providing a web site featuring information in the field of mental health and wellness” in International Class 044.

 

Similarity of the Marks

 

In a likelihood of confusion determination, the marks in their entireties are compared for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1323, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). 

 

Similarity with the Marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4200809, 4248370, 5126863, 5291759, 5291760, 5566758, and 5566766

 

In the present case, Applicant’s PARADIGM mark is confusingly similar to Registrant’s PARADIGM HEALTH PLANS, PARADIGM HEALTH PLANS EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS, and DOCTORS HOSPITALS HEALTH PLAN PARADIGM marks in terms of appearance, sound, and commercial impression.  Marks may be confusingly similar in appearance where similar terms or phrases or similar parts of terms or phrases appear in the compared marks and create a similar overall commercial impression.  See Crocker Nat’l Bank v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 228 USPQ 689, 690-91 (TTAB 1986), aff’d sub nom. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 811 F.2d 1490, 1495, 1 USPQ2d 1813, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding COMMCASH and COMMUNICASH confusingly similar); In re Corning Glass Works, 229 USPQ 65, 66 (TTAB 1985) (finding CONFIRM and CONFIRMCELLS confusingly similar); In re Pellerin Milnor Corp., 221 USPQ 558, 560 (TTAB 1983) (finding MILTRON and MILLTRONICS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(ii)-(iii). Here, Applicant’s and Registrant’s marks share the identical term PARADIGM; thus, they appear and sound identical in part.

 

Further, Applicant’s PARADIGM mark is confusingly similar to Registrant’s PARADIGM HEALTH PLANS, PARADIGM HEALTH PLANS EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS, and DOCTORS HOSPITALS HEALTH PLAN PARADIGM marks because the additional wording present in the registered marks is to be given less weight in this analysis. Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression.  See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii).  Disclaimed matter that is descriptive of or generic for a party’s services is typically less significant or less dominant when comparing marks.  In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1305, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Dixie Rests., Inc., 105 F.3d 1405, 1407, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Here, Registrant has disclaimed the wording HEALTH PLANS from the PARADIGM HEALTH PLANS marks, the wording HEALTH PLANS EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS from the PARADIGM HEALTH PLANS EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS marks, and the wording DOCTORS HOSPITALS HEALTH PLAN from the DOCTORS HOSPITALS HEALTH PLAN PARADIGM marks, as the wording is merely descriptive of its services. Accordingly, the dominant portion of the registered marks that must be given greater weight in this analysis is the word PARADIGM – which is identical to the applied-for PARADIGM mark.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Similarity with the Mark in U.S. Registration No. 5239744

 

Here, Applicant’s mark is PARADIGM and Registrant’s mark is PARADIGM.  These marks are identical in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.”  In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with Applicant’s and Registrant’s respective services.  Id.

 

Therefore, the marks are confusingly similar. 

 

Relatedness of the Services

 

The compared services need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion.  See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).  They need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the services] emanate from the same source.”  Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

 

Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the services stated in the application and registrations at issue, not on extrinsic evidence of actual use.  See In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297, 1307, 128 USPQ2d 1047, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 866 F.3d 1315, 1325, 123 USPQ2d 1744, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).  

 

In this case, the services of the parties have no restrictions as to channels of trade or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.”  In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). 

 

Relatedness of the Services with U.S. Registration Nos. 4200809, 4248370, 5126863, 5291759, 5291760, 5566758, and 5566766

 

Applicant’s services are related to Registrant’s services, as demonstrated by the attached evidence. The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots of the webpages of entities similar to Applicant and Registrant, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant services – cost containment services and business consulting services related to health care – and that the relevant services are provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  See:

 

-       http://costcontainmentsolutions.com/

-       http://www.fosterthomas.com/employee-benefits-advisory-services/cost-containment-and-self-insured-strategies/

-       http://www.canopyhealth.com/en/about.html

-       http://www.mmhia.com/services/

-       http://www.univest.net/business-insurance/consulting-expertise

 

Thus, Applicant’s and Registrant’s services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

Relatedness of the Services with U.S. Registration No. 5239744

 

Applicant’s services are related to Registrant’s services, as demonstrated by the attached evidence. The attached Internet evidence, consisting of screenshots of the webpages of entities similar to Applicant and Registrant, establishes that the same entity commonly provides the relevant services – telemedicine services for mental health patients, managed health care services for addiction recovery, medical consulting and rehabilitation services, and psychological counseling and rehabilitation services in the fields of mental health, addiction, and sobriety – and that the relevant services are provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use.  See:

 

-       http://www.americanwell.com/service-lines/telepsychiatry/

-       http://intouchhealth.com/specialty-telehealth-solutions/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=specialty-telehealth-solutions&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIzrLdw-uY4AIV6P7jBx0TlQIpEAMYASAAEgKDpfD_BwE#behavioral-health

-       http://www.addictioncenter.com/treatment/magellan-health-addiction-treatment/

 

Thus, Applicant’s and Registrants’ services are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes.  See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).

 

Conclusion

 

Because Applicant's and Registrants’ marks are similar and because the services are related, Applicant's mark must be refused registration pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act.

 

Although Applicant's mark has been refused registration, Applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration. However, if Applicant responds to the refusal, Applicant must also respond to the requirements set forth below.

 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE SERVICES – CLARIFICATION REQUIRED

 

Applicant’s current identification of the services is not acceptable and requires clarification.

 

International Class 035

 

The identification of the services in this class is acceptable.

 

International Class 044

 

The identification of the services in this class is acceptable, but Applicant is strongly encouraged to adopt the minor suggested changes.

 

International Class 045

 

The wording “Medical case management consulting services, namely, medical consultations regarding diagnoses and treatment for diseases” and “Vocational case management” in the identification of services is indefinite and must be clarified because it does not make clear the nature of the services.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.  Applicant must amend this wording to specify the common commercial or generic name of the services.  See TMEP §1402.01.  If the services have no common commercial or generic name, Applicant must describe or explain the nature of the services using clear and succinct language.  See id.

 

The remainder of the identification of the services in this class is acceptable.

 

Suggested Identification

 

Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate: 

 

International Class 035: Health care cost containment in the field of implantable surgical devices for worker's compensation related surgical procedures

 

International Class 044: Managed health care services for orthopedic, spine and surgical care management and pain management related to work related injuries; Managed health care services for addiction recovery; Telemedicine services for orthopedic, spine and surgical care management and pain management related to work related injuries; Medical managed health care consulting services in the fields of second opinions, medical and vocational rehabilitation primarily responding to the needs of the workers compensation industry

 

International Class 045: Medical case management consulting services, namely, coordination of medical consultations regarding diagnoses and treatment for diseases; Vocational case management services, namely, coordination of necessary vocational issues for persons injured at work; Case management consulting services in the field of coordinating the procurement and administration of medication and coordinating physical, social and psychological and medical services for disabled persons

 

Amendment Guidelines

 

Applicant’s services may be clarified or limited, but may not be expanded beyond those originally itemized in the application or as acceptably amended. See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); TMEP §1402.06. Applicant may clarify or limit the identification by inserting qualifying language or deleting items to result in a more specific identification; however, Applicant may not substitute different services or add services not found or encompassed by those in the original application or as acceptably amended. See TMEP §1402.06(a)-(b). The scope of the services sets the outer limit for any changes to the identification and is generally determined by the ordinary meaning of the wording in the identification. TMEP §§1402.06(b), 1402.07(a)-(b).  Any acceptable changes to the services will further limit scope, and once services are deleted, they are not permitted to be reinserted. TMEP §1402.07(e).

 

For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual.  See TMEP §1402.04.

 

ASSISTANCE

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about Applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide Applicant with additional explanation about the refusal and requirements in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:  Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820.  TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class of goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.  However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.  

 

 

 

/Xheneta Ademi/

Examining Attorney

Law Office 122

(571) 272-7151

xheneta.ademi@uspto.gov

 

TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:  Go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.  Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application.  For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail TEAS@uspto.gov.  For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.

 

All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.

 

WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE:  It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants).  If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response. 

 

PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION:  To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.gov.uspto.report/.  Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen.  If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov or call 1-800-786-9199.  For more information on checking status, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/.

 

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS:  Use the TEAS form at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.

 

 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING YOUR

U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION

 

USPTO OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) HAS ISSUED

ON 1/31/2019 FOR U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 88226334

 

Please follow the instructions below:

 

(1)  TO READ THE LETTER:  Click on this link or go to http://tsdr.uspto.gov,enter the U.S. application serial number, and click on “Documents.”

 

The Office action may not be immediately viewable, to allow for necessary system updates of the application, but will be available within 24 hours of this e-mail notification.

 

(2)  TIMELY RESPONSE IS REQUIRED:  Please carefully review the Office action to determine (1) how to respond, and (2) the applicable response time period.  Your response deadline will be calculated from 1/31/2019 (or sooner if specified in the Office action).  A response transmitted through the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) must be received before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  For information regarding response time periods, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/process/status/responsetime.jsp.

 

Do NOT hit “Reply” to this e-mail notification, or otherwise e-mail your response because the USPTO does NOT accept e-mails as responses to Office actions.  Instead, the USPTO recommends that you respond online using the TEAS response form located at http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp.

 

(3)  QUESTIONS:  For questions about the contents of the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney.  For technical assistance in accessing or viewing the Office action in the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system, please e-mail TSDR@uspto.gov.

 

WARNING

 

Failure to file the required response by the applicable response deadline will result in the ABANDONMENT of your application.  For more information regarding abandonment, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/basics/abandon.jsp.

 

PRIVATE COMPANY SOLICITATIONS REGARDING YOUR APPLICATION:  Private companies not associated with the USPTO are using information provided in trademark applications to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations.  These companies often use names that closely resemble the USPTO and their solicitations may look like an official government document.  Many solicitations require that you pay “fees.” 

 

Please carefully review all correspondence you receive regarding this application to make sure that you are responding to an official document from the USPTO rather than a private company solicitation.  All official USPTO correspondence will be mailed only from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, VA; or sent by e-mail from the domain “@uspto.gov.”  For more information on how to handle private company solicitations, see http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/solicitation_warnings.jsp.